Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: 1. The territory / landscape / seascape proposed is a globally important area for biodiversity and climate benefit. For example, the forests of the Amazon biome possess a unique wealth that allows them to accommodate a high variety of species and provide many ecosystem services including global climate regulation and especially the regulation of the cycle of water in the Amazon and recirculation of these waters on the continent.
Evidence B:The area is mostly in well conserved areas of the Colombian Amazon, neighbour to nature protected areas and other indigenous terriories, with high level of species, important forest area and rivers.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: The area proposed by stakeholders demonstrates the importance of the Indian approach to climate change mitigation and carbon stored in forests and soils.
Evidence B:The area is mostly in well conserved areas of the Colombian Amazon, neighbour to nature protected areas and other indigenous terriories, with high level of carbon.
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: Most of the area of the proposed project is under the governance of indigenous peoples but with certain limitations due to lack of the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples.
Evidence B:The project area is held and managed by indigenous peoples and officially recognised.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: The document concerned, explains the importance of the knowledge of indigenous peoples of the area, for example your own involves knowledge of environmental management systems, which represent a strategy of multiple and extensive use of the Amazon region, based on the use and maintenance biodiversity, controlled by environmental seasonality and framed in a strong base of cultural principles.
Evidence B:The importance of the areas to the indigenous peoples is well expressed, considered the objetctive of the document and the initial stage of the proposal
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: The area is vulnerable to negative current threats and risks for indigenous peoples and biodiversity. Many of the threats are insufficient constitutional and policy development on land use planning in the country, and particularly in the Amazon region, which affects the lack of full recognition of the territorialidadindígena and related constitutional rights, limitations in the process of adjudication and titling of land shelter in areas occupied by indigenous people or population without access to ethnic territory and the advance of colonization and therefore the difficulty of producing crops for self-subsistence, part of the reserves and indigenous territories continue to be affected by the presence of illicit crops, armed conflict and the increase in oil and mining, armed conflict, extractive industries: oil, mining and forest resources extraction of non-renewable and renewable natural resources, including oil exploitation, legal and illegal mining or logging through use permits, fraudulent or simply illegal logging, licenses have also been affecting differently to mention some threats.
Evidence B:Although the level of pressure has been increasing, from mining, oil and other interests, and there is a tendency of deforestation aggraveted by the unclear implementation of peace agreement in Colombia, the area is not yet under direct threat comparing to other regions.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: It reflects initiative that there are favorable political conditions for conservation led by indigenous peoples in the proposed area, for example, work plans agreed during the years 2014 to 2019 contributed to the promotion of the rights of indigenous peoples in isolation (PIA s), support for the safeguards for territorial consolidation, promoting measures of access, use and enjoyment and protection of territories ancestral considered, the promotion of the right to food autonomy and the development of productive alternatives, protection of traditional knowledge , and strengthening the fundamental right to participation and organizational process. However, poor implementation of standards.
Evidence B:Besides the indigenous peoples own organization, the territores are officially recognised by the national government, there are good sinergy with national system of protected areas and other policies, despite the irregular positioning of any administration of any country.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: According to the document submitted by the interested parties, there is some support from the government for conservation led by indigenous peoples in the country / area proposed.
Evidence B:There are active promotion of indigenous peoples-led conservation, but this is not homogenous in the country (but, again, this is the case of any administration of any country).
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: The document prepared by the parties concerned, few projects reflect conservation-Led indigenous peoples but in a very significant importance.
Evidence B:There are several well demonstrated and effective initiatives, although yet some way to go to full territory implementation.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: According to the document, there are other initiatives (major projects) that provide additional support for conservation led by indigenous peoples in the proposed geography. However, the document does not produce more than necessary to learn more about the links with other projects.
Evidence B:Other conservation initiatives exist and are in good sinergy, such as GEF funded efforts for well stablishing nature protected areas, including Cheribiquete nearby.
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: The initiative reflects the proposed approach is well aligned with the overall objective of the ICI to improve the efforts of indigenous peoples to manage land, water and natural resources to provide
Evidence B:Focused on strengthening the identity and community organization, with good links to policies.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: The paper presents a clear and compelling set of activities and results. However, proponents need to provide the context and time for the relevant activities.
Evidence B:Good project propostal, but some elements (such as the community life quality improvement) yet not clearly related to the intended results (such as resisting deforestation pressures).
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: The initiative put forward by stakeholders, the project (objectives and activities) helps to overcome the threats identified and to implement the necessary opportunities for conservation led by indigenous peoples. For example, some axes are paramount as the cultural principles of territorial management for reducing deforestation and organizational strengthening for environmental governance to name a few.
Evidence B:Although the proposals are in the right direction, face mining and oil interests and trends of colonization in the Colombian Amazon, with the consequent deforestation and other impacts, will not be possible by one project and by better organizing the communities – and not even by the indigenous peoples alone .
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: According to the document, the activities can be achieved within a budget range of $ 500,000 to $ 2,000,000 USD over a period of 5 years of implementation of the project
Evidence B:Activities could be executed, as proposed, but considering the location, the distances etc., it is likely that issues might appear along the project life time.
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: The document includes moderate and specific sources of co-funding.
Evidence B:There are other sources, including GEF and Moore Foundation ones, but at this point is not clear if the are clearly complementary to the proposal here presented.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: Regarding the document, the estimated global environmental benefits (basic indicators of the GEF) are substantial and realistic
Evidence B:The total area is very significant and it the governance will improve with the project (although maybe not enough to face the threats and pressures).
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: The results additional living cultural and expressed initiative are contributing to the objectives of the project. For example, the cultural strengthening the management of the territorial and community training for safeguarding Environmental territories to name a few.
Evidence B:Better organized communities, with cultural relations within the communities and with nature, are expected.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: The project provides a medium term vision for long-term sustainability of biodiversity and indigenous peoples.
Evidence B:The problem is systemic in our societies and sustainability will not be solved but this one project, but the proposal goes in the right direction.
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: The document is based and contributes to national priorities as defined in NBSAPs and / or NDC. For example, the importance to indigenous peoples of the successful restoration provide elements for discussion on participatory methods productive restoration that can affect the models from the current context can generate in the future forest proposed use of the forest.
Evidence B:The national conservation priorities to the region are considered in the proposal.
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: The paper demonstrates the importance of women in their world view in all aspects of daily life. The project seeks to strengthen and make visible the role that women in indigenous communities from their ancestral knowledge of the territory and property found there.
Evidence B:There are proposed activities related to gender, but not throughout the project.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: This initiative is an innovative and transformative exercise of self-management that calls from the territory to strengthen environmental governance and promotes the consolidation of organizational processes that contribute to the maintenance of ecosystem connectivity and survival of indigenous peoples in accordance with its principles cultural and livelihoods.
Evidence B:In general, the strenghening of the communities organization (governance) is not as transformative as could be desired, but some proposed activities and results (such as their own justice system and the relation with their enviroment) are potentially transformative
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: The document prepared by the interested parties confirm that the document was led by an organization of indigenous peoples
Evidence B:The proposal is completly led by indigenous peoples’ organizations, nevertheless, it is led by the Amazon level federation (the organization that represents the indigenous peoples of the whole Colombian region), not the ones related to tproject he area directly.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: According to the proposal, the main proponent demonstrates leadership in the field relevant to the proposed work
Evidence B:The proposal is led by the Amazon level indigenous peoples’ federation but relating to the indigenous peoples’ grassroots associations.
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: According to the proposal. the leading proponent has demonstrated relevant experience in working with networks, alliances and indigenous peoples’ organizations at national and regional / strength of the partnerships on the ground level.
Evidence B:See answers above, 1 and 2, in this Section 3.
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: The initiative reflects the leading proponent has the technical expertise and capacity to address environmental problems, causes deep and barriers
Evidence B:The proposing organization seems fully capable to implement the activities proposed, and claims experience on GEF-funded projects, althouth this seems indirect.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: The paper demonstrates the capacity for financial management and project necessary for the scale of the effort proposed is moderate
Evidence B:As per the declarations in the project proposal, they met the criteria.
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: The initiative presented indicates that the leading organization has experience with safeguards and other standards required by the GEF.
Evidence B:As per the declarations in the project proposal, they have experience, but the explanation does not fully convince the related experience.